Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Sharon Rosette (2024-04-17) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP filed an ex parte motion to vacate third-party deposition notices served by the Quechan Tribe on state employees, arguing the timing interfered with Plaintiff's pending motion to compel document production. The Court denied the motion, finding Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the depositions of third parties who did not object, and noting Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence in pursuing the underlying documents.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's ex parte motion to vacate the notices of deposition and order the Tribe to reissue subpoenas.“Plaintiff’s ex parte requests to vacate the Tribe’s deposition notices and order the Tribe to reissue subpoenas are DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the general rule that only the party to whom a subpoena is directed has standing to challenge it. Because the deponents (state employees) did not object to the depositions and agreed to appear, the plaintiff, as a non-party to the subpoena, lacked standing to intervene. The court's reliance on the lack of standing is a dispositive and legally sound basis for the denial. |
Denial of Plaintiff's request to delay depositions until after the hearing on its motion to compel document production.“sum, the facts before the Court do not support Plaintiff's argument.” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence in pursuing the documents it sought to compel. The plaintiff did not show when the subpoena was served or the motion to compel was filed, nor did it explain why it waited until May 20 to raise the scheduling conflict. Given the existing scheduling order and the plaintiff's lack of demonstrated diligence, the court was within its discretion to deny the request for a deviation from the discovery schedule. |
Denial of Plaintiff's request for information regarding the mode of the depositions (in-person vs. remote).“Plaintiff’s request for more information is therefore DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court noted that the Tribe's counsel had already informed the Plaintiff in writing that the depositions would proceed remotely. Therefore, the request for this specific information was moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard regarding standing to challenge third-party subpoenas. The court correctly identified that the plaintiff was not the party to whom the subpoenas were directed and that the deponents did not object. The court also appropriately addressed the plaintiff's underlying concern about document production by noting the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate diligence. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the arguments raised in the motion and opposition.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, et al., Case No.: 17cv1436-GPC (MSB)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WILLIAMS & 13 v. COCHRANE’S EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE NOTICES OF DEPOSITION BY 14 QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA THE QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT INDIAN RESERVATION, et al., 15 YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION Defendants. [ECF NO. 299] 16 17 18 AND ALL RELATED COUNTER CLAIMS 19 20 21 On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte 22 motion seeking to vacate the Notices of Depositions Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff 23 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (“the Tribe”) issued to depose 24 representatives for the State of California (“State”). (ECF No. 299 at 2.) Later the same 25 day, the Tribe filed its Opposition to the ex parte motion and Defendants Robert 26 Rosette, Rosette & Associates, PC, and Rosette, LLP (collectively “Rosette Defendants”) 27 filed a Notice of Joinder. (ECF Nos. 300, 301.) 2 In 2016-2017, California Superior Court Judge Joginder Dhillon and Sara Drake 3 (“Deponents”) were involved on behalf of the State of California in negotiations of the 4 Tribe’s class III gaming compact. (ECF No. 300 at 2.) 5 On March 12, 2020, the Tribe served third-party deposition subpoenas on both 6 Deponents, setting April 28, 2020 and April 29, 2020 as the date for their depositions 7 (“The Depositions”). (ECF No. 299-1 at 2.) The Tribe sent notices of “The Depositions” 8 to counsel for the other parties in this case. (ECF No. 300-1 at 2.) Due to the COVID-19 9 pandemic, the Tribe determined it was necessary to postpone The Depositions; the 10 Tribe informed Plaintiff’s counsel on April 10, 2020 that The Depositions were being 11 postponed to a date to be determined. (Id. at 3.) 12 On April 29, 2020, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for One-Time Continuance of 13 Scheduling Order Deadlines.” (ECF No. 293.) In response thereto, the Court continued 14 fact discovery cut-off to June 12, 2020. (ECF No. 294.) 15 Working with Deponents’ counsel, the Tribe rescheduled The Depositions for June 16 2, 2020 and June 3, 2020. (ECF No. 300-1 at 3.) The Tribe served notice of The 17 Depositions rescheduled for June on counsel for the other parties on May 1, 2020. (ECF 18 No. 299-1 at 2; ECF No. 300-1 at 3.) Neither Deponents nor their respective attorneys 19 have objected either to being deposed or the date of the deposition. (Id.) Instead, 20 Deponents’ counsel agreed to produce subpoenas pursuant to the original subpoena on 21 the postponed date. (Id.) Counsel for the Tribe met and conferred with Plaintiff’s 22 counsel “numerous occasions” between May 1, 2020 and May 20, 2020, with no 23 mention of the scheduling of The Depositions until May 20, 2020. (Id.) 24 On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with counsel for 25 Deponents and the Tribe to request they reschedule the depositions after a hearing on 26 Plaintiff’s motion to compel the State’s compliance with document subpoenas, currently 27 scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2020 in the United States District Court for the 2 Plaintiff that the depositions would go forward as planned. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff’s instant ex parte motion, the Tribe’s opposition, and Rosette 4 Defendants’ joinder were all filed on May 21, 2020. (ECF Nos. 299, 300, 301.) 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Reciting the preceding facts, voluminous unsupported speculation regarding the 7 Tribe’s motives and strategy, and no authority, Plaintiff asks this Court to (1) vacate the 8 notices for The Depositions on June 2 and 3, 2020; (2) require that the Tribe reissue its 9 deposition subpoenas for a date after Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with 10 document subpoenas against the State is heard; and (3) require the Tribe to specify 11 whether the depositions will be done in person or remotely, so Plaintiff can plan 12 accordingly. (ECF No. 299.) Plaintiff offers to join the Tribe in requesting that The 13 Depositions be permitted to go forward after the close of fact discovery. (Id. at 3, n.1.) 14 The Tribe and Rosette Defendants (together, “Defendants”) argue that Plaintiff has no 15 standing to challenge The Depositions of third parties who do not object to their own 16 depositions. (ECF No. 300 at 3-4.) They further note that there has been no prejudice to 17 Plaintiff because the depositions were delayed, and any unfortunate timing for Plaintiff 18 was the result of Plaintiff’s own actions, such as late-issuance of subpoenas on the State 19 and Plaintiff’s insistence on only a one-time continuance. (Id. at 4-5.) 20 A. Standing 21 In the first instance, the Court looks to see whether Plaintiff has standing to 22 challenge the notices of deposition. The general rule is “that only the party to which a 23 subpoena is directed has standing to challenge that subpoena.” Stafford v. Brink's, Inc., 24 No. CV 14-1352-MWF (PLA), 2016 WL 7647659, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (citing 25 Leal v. Target Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-00846-APG-NJK, 2015 WL 7294936 (D. Nev. June 26 24, 2015).
27 The notices of deposition at issue here were duly noticed depositions to third 2 and were not reissued. (ECF No. 299 at 2.) However, Deponents have agreed to appear 3 at The Depositions based on the original subpoenas and their counsel agreed with the 4 Tribe that it was unnecessary to reissue the subpoenas. Plaintiff has not put forward 5 any authority for its position that the subpoena has expired or to justify attempted 6 intervention here. Since Plaintiff does not represent Deponents, Plaintiff has no 7 standing to challenge The Depositions. Plaintiff’s ex parte requests to vacate the Tribe’s 8 deposition notices and order the Tribe to reissue subpoenas are DENIED. 9 B. Request for Completion of Document Subpoenas 10 The real gist of Plaintiff’s argument is that it should have the opportunity to finish 11 litigating its motion to compel the State’s compliance with its document subpoena, so 12 that Plaintiff has the State’s documents to use at The Depositions. (ECF No. 300 at 2-3.) 13 Placing blame on the Tribe, Plaintiff suggests that by noticing The Depositions in the last 14 two weeks before the close of fact discovery, the Tribe intended to force Plaintiff to go 15 forward without complete documents with which to cross examine Deponents. (Id.) 16 But this argument is unavailing. 17 Plaintiff has made no demonstration that it diligently pursued the records it now 18 seeks to compel prior to The Depositions. The Court issued a Scheduling Order after a 19 Case Management Conference on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 242.) If Plaintiff wanted to 20 have documents from the State prior to depositions of the State’s witnesses, it was 21 incumbent on Plaintiff to prioritize the pursuit of those documents early in discovery, 22 yet Plaintiff hasn’t even attempted to demonstrate that it made a diligent effort that 23 would justify an exception to the current scheduling order for The Depositions to occur 24 after fact discovery cutoff. Plaintiff does not state when it served the subpoena in 25 question, or when it filed its motion to compel. 26 Nor has Plaintiff justified waiting from May 1 to May 20 before initiating a 27 conversation with counsel for the Tribe and Deponents about rescheduling the 1 || would expect that Plaintiff would have raised the issue even before April 10, when 2 || Plaintiff learned The Depositions would not go forward later that month. Plaintiff's 3 || having waited to raise this issue until May 20, 2020, suggests that continuance of The 4 || Depositions due to COVID-19 gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file the motion to compel 5 || which is the basis of this motion. sum, the facts before the Court do not support 6 || Plaintiff's argument. 7 Request to Know Mode of The Depositions 8 Addressing Plaintiff's concern about how The Depositions will go forward, the 9 || Court notes that counsel for the Tribe has informed Plaintiff in writing that they will 10 || proceed remotely. (ECF No. 300-1 at 4.) Plaintiff’s request for more information is 11 || therefore DENIED as moot. 12 Ill. CONCLUSION 13 Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to vacate the notices of deposition by the Tribe is 14 || DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: May 26, 2020 . a 17 2 — CZi— 13 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28